(Click the image for 1:1)

^^ There's IE9 pasted on top of the IE8 screen. "i" "r" "C" letters jump out as particularly bad but overall all the IE9 text appears lighter.

Now I don't know about your display but on my CRT IE8 looks better. And as everyone knows, to date no LCD has surpassed the best* of CRT in performance. Contrast performance when using a black screen with dark objects. Like most games. So I'm not moving from CRT until that is fixed. And the input lag, which is more than CRT. And the numerous other issues you can read on hard-forum. There's a 300 page thread there about everyone wanting to buy a CRT. Then there's the fact that LCD are more stressful for eyes. Atleast mine, they make eyes dry. So LCD fans, I don't want to hear from you. I've seen enough of them and none, absolutely none, beat CRT in any parameter that actually matters (perfect geometry isn't critical to my use).

* (I don't have the best of CRT, I got mine for $10 used and haven't seen any < $3000 LCD that beats it in my chosen critical parameters. Talk about a steal!)

If you show me a < 30" LCD with each invidual pixel backed up by its own light source (eg. 1920x1080 invidual LED's) then I'll listen to you. If it's less than $3000. Resolution atleast 1600x1200. Good hunting.

(I think NEC might've had one back in the day but the problem with invidual LED sources is the uneven white balance/performance and problem of the invidual leds "aging" at different pace requiring constant re-calibrations to maintain even perf across the screen. So really even if you find one such display, it might be good at first but get worse much quicker than CRT. This is probably why you don't see many of those in the market + the cost.)

Also, I have a counter challenge: find me a 24" and 19" CRT that I can fit side-by-side, with plenty of room to spare at the front, on a desk that's 120cm wide and 80cm deep. Good hunting.

Sven Groot said:

IE9 uses DirectWrite, which uses subpixel positioning, which (like regular subpixel ClearType rendering) doesn't work on a CRT. Get an LCD, or disable ClearType.

 

Also, I have a counter challenge: find me a 24" and 19" CRT that I can fit side-by-side, with plenty of room to spare at the front, on a desk that's 120cm wide and 80cm deep. Good hunting.

Both of them use ClearType. The other just has the sub pixels in different colors. It seems quite much similar as the issue that should be fixed in VS2010 RTM according to WPF text blog. There were people here who didn't seem to be bothered. Well I guess enough were bothered elsewhere since they chose to fix it. And now I'm saying there's issues again. So we'll see, maybe this will be fixed also.

ed: I do get what you're saying about the positioning but I don't understand the technology enough to say how it should work. I just see that it looks a bit fuzzy here. I will find a LCD to compare this on to see if the issue is purely CRT related.

androidi said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Both of them use ClearType. The other just has the sub pixels in different colors. It seems quite much similar as the issue that should be fixed in VS2010 RTM according to WPF text blog. There were people here who didn't seem to be bothered. Well I guess enough were bothered elsewhere since they chose to fix it. And now I'm saying there's issues again. So we'll see, maybe this will be fixed also.

 

ed: I do get what you're saying about the positioning but I don't understand the technology enough to say how it should work. I just see that it looks a bit fuzzy here. I will find a LCD to compare this on to see if the issue is purely CRT related.

Both of them use ClearType. The other just has the sub pixels in different colors. It seems quite much similar as the issue that should be fixed in VS2010 RTM according to WPF text blog.

DirectWrite uses a newer version of ClearType with subpixel positioning, which IE8 does not use. WPF also uses subpixel positioning, and it did have problems. And you know how they fixed it for .Net 4.0? By changing WPF to render like DirectWrite does. So now, after the fix, WPF 4.0 text looks like DirectWrite does.

If they want to change this they'll have to update DirectWrite. It's beyond the scope of IE9.

Sven Groot said:

androidi said:

*snip*

DirectWrite uses a newer version of ClearType with subpixel positioning, which IE8 does not use. WPF also uses subpixel positioning, and it did have problems. And you know how they fixed it for .Net 4.0? By changing WPF to render like DirectWrite does. So now, after the fix, WPF 4.0 text looks like DirectWrite does.

 

If they want to change this they'll have to update DirectWrite. It's beyond the scope of IE9.

I don't have the facts on this but this:

http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/text/WindowsLiveWriter/AdditionalWPFTextClarityImprovements_87F9/SXS%20Darker%20Theme%20-%20%20Orcas%20(Top)%20x%20Dev10%20(Bottom)_2.png">http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/text/WindowsLiveWriter/AdditionalWPFTextClarityImprovements_87F9/SXS%20Darker%20Theme%20-%20%20Orcas%20(Top)%20x%20Dev10%20(Bottom)_2.png

GDI vs 2010 RTM comparison looks quite close (I'd need a color picker tool to say which is which). In comparison the IE8 vs IE9 preview looks nothing alike zoomed up. If the font and colors of the above image could be replicated in HTML and opened in IE8 and IE9 that might tell something. Or not. I'm not sure what it would tell. I'll try to figure it out.

I use NEC monitors right now, I got one 1000:1 and one 800:1, very calm and soft on the eys ( I use them 10 hours a day ). Also, even with these monitors, you should not sit with 50/50 brightness, I sit with 20% brightness. and never glare long times on a white screen ( I change Visual Studio color to blue [old Pascal])

I have seen 3 eye specialists and they all told me the above.

If you say CRTs are good, I'm sure you haven't used a "good" LCD.

The text clarity in LCD is far better than any CRT. and I have had the most expensive CRTs from both SONY and EIZO.

EIZO is by the way a very good LCD brand. Especially in terms of right colors.

ps. Sorry if my reply is a bit OT.

turrican said:

I disagree with your completely regarding LCD vs CRT. Yes, lower priced LCDs are just UTTER CRAP, but anything above $500 is good. When buying an LCD, make sure you don't get more than 1000:1 or 800:1, some advertise 10.000:1 and those are the ones who hurt the eye. Because LCD can not really produce more than 1000:1 ( I read some article about it some time ago ) so what they do is that they make the backlight so strong it looks like 10.000:1 but it really hurts the eyes very bad.

 

I use NEC monitors right now, I got one 1000:1 and one 800:1, very calm and soft on the eys ( I use them 10 hours a day ). Also, even with these monitors, you should not sit with 50/50 brightness, I sit with 20% brightness. and never glare long times on a white screen ( I change Visual Studio color to blue [old Pascal])

I have seen 3 eye specialists and they all told me the above.

If you say CRTs are good, I'm sure you haven't used a "good" LCD.

 

The text clarity in LCD is far better than any CRT. and I have had the most expensive CRTs from both SONY and EIZO.

EIZO is by the way a very good LCD brand. Especially in terms of right colors.

ps. Sorry if my reply is a bit OT.

Don't waste your time - Androidi are like those people who continue to insist that gramophone records are better than CDs even though they don't even listen to them themselves because actually, as soon as you play it, it's damaged a little bit and it's impossible to keep dust and dirt off something that holds an electrostatic charge so perfectly.

I was amused however by the argument that LCDs are inferior because his eyes dry out when using them. You might want to try blinking occasionally! I find this too sometimes, but because I'm not a nutjob, I realise that I blink less because I'm able to stare at the LCD for longer and the reason for that is because it is flicker-free and razor sharp.

turrican said:

I disagree with your completely regarding LCD vs CRT. Yes, lower priced LCDs are just UTTER CRAP, but anything above $500 is good. When buying an LCD, make sure you don't get more than 1000:1 or 800:1, some advertise 10.000:1 and those are the ones who hurt the eye. Because LCD can not really produce more than 1000:1 ( I read some article about it some time ago ) so what they do is that they make the backlight so strong it looks like 10.000:1 but it really hurts the eyes very bad.

 

I use NEC monitors right now, I got one 1000:1 and one 800:1, very calm and soft on the eys ( I use them 10 hours a day ). Also, even with these monitors, you should not sit with 50/50 brightness, I sit with 20% brightness. and never glare long times on a white screen ( I change Visual Studio color to blue [old Pascal])

I have seen 3 eye specialists and they all told me the above.

If you say CRTs are good, I'm sure you haven't used a "good" LCD.

 

The text clarity in LCD is far better than any CRT. and I have had the most expensive CRTs from both SONY and EIZO.

EIZO is by the way a very good LCD brand. Especially in terms of right colors.

ps. Sorry if my reply is a bit OT.

Well I did consider getting 2490Wuxi (the old model) seriously at one point but research said it still has more input lag than a crt and there were many reports of audible whine either from the psu or the backlight. Also I'm still not convinced that even the best LCD have great performance in pitch black room displaying very dark shades. They tend to glow when not facing directly and the viewing angles and performance in dark is what I really want when say gaming something like Fallout. I've tried IPS,PVA and TN displays at home for good time each so this isn't purely internets research. Each of them were above $500 new. I know there were even better LCD stuff out there but every time I looked into it there's always those certain issues that are more to do with the lighting (backlight) method than anything else. Also CCFL flicker pattern is different from CRT. It's more like staring into a strobe light. This can be seen visually on camera at high shutter rate. I don't know if that's what caused the odd sensation in the eyes after long LCD use but going back to CRT there was relief within 2 days. I couldn't use the LCD more than 6 hours a day at the point of switching back to CRT. Now I can easily do 12 hours.

rhm said:

turrican said:

*snip*

Don't waste your time - Androidi are like those people who continue to insist that gramophone records are better than CDs even though they don't even listen to them themselves because actually, as soon as you play it, it's damaged a little bit and it's impossible to keep dust and dirt off something that holds an electrostatic charge so perfectly.

 

I was amused however by the argument that LCDs are inferior because his eyes dry out when using them. You might want to try blinking occasionally! I find this too sometimes, but because I'm not a nutjob, I realise that I blink less because I'm able to stare at the LCD for longer and the reason for that is because it is flicker-free and razor sharp.

Tapes are better. Of course the question is for what. There's plenty of evidence to go around that using tapes as part of an audio production chain to color the sound of a track makes it sound nicer. eg. There's a guy in YouTube who uploads synth demos. I thought his first demo sounded superb and the rest sounded like crap. Well after digging enough it turned out he had ran the first one through analog tape. No wonder. The greatest electronic musician (eg some on Warp records) use it too as part of production process.

rhm said:

turrican said:

*snip*

Don't waste your time - Androidi are like those people who continue to insist that gramophone records are better than CDs even though they don't even listen to them themselves because actually, as soon as you play it, it's damaged a little bit and it's impossible to keep dust and dirt off something that holds an electrostatic charge so perfectly.

 

I was amused however by the argument that LCDs are inferior because his eyes dry out when using them. You might want to try blinking occasionally! I find this too sometimes, but because I'm not a nutjob, I realise that I blink less because I'm able to stare at the LCD for longer and the reason for that is because it is flicker-free and razor sharp.

Vinyl is still better than CDs, why they're still popular =)

*highjack thread*

And vinyl do sound better than CDs. Just because something is new doesn't make it better.

spivonious said:

I agree that LCD still hasn't caught up to CRT. If LCDs weren't so small I don't think they would have ever caught on. Better colors, better black levels, better viewing angles; about the only thing LCDs "win" at is sharpness.

 

And vinyl do sound better than CDs. Just because something is new doesn't make it better.

I have yet to see an LCD monitor that I like better than a Trinitron CRT.

It just seems impossible to get even colour from top to bottom. If I draw something in light grey on a white background in Illustrator on a my CRT then drag it to my LCD I have to move my head up and down to see it at all on the LCD.

LCDs on laptops are even worse because there's such a small horizontal band where the colours are half decent you're constantly tripping the screen forward and back to get the contrast to look right.

Just because it's newer doesn't make it better.

Although... I find tape annoying and vinyl terribly impractical so I'll stick with purely digital audio

dentaku said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

I have yet to see an LCD monitor that I like better than a Trinitron CRT.

It just seems impossible to get even colour from top to bottom. If I draw something in light grey on a white background in Illustrator on a my CRT then drag it to my LCD I have to move my head up and down to see it at all on the LCD.

LCDs on laptops are even worse because there's such a small horizontal band where the colours are half decent you're constantly tripping the screen forward and back to get the contrast to look right.

 

Just because it's newer doesn't make it better.

 

Although... I find tape annoying and vinyl terribly impractical so I'll stick with purely digital audio

Did they ever make plasma monitors?  If not then why not?  A plasma would have deeper blacks and higher refresh than an LCD.  I personally use an LCD for gaming and I like them better than the old CRTs.  When I am playing a game I usually don't sit around judging color depth, I am just playing the game.  The only thing that truely matters for gaming and LCDs is refresh rate.  I haven't seen a ghosting problem with LCDs in a long time.

JeremyJ said:

dentaku said:

*snip*

Did they ever make plasma monitors?  If not then why not?  A plasma would have deeper blacks and higher refresh than an LCD.  I personally use an LCD for gaming and I like them better than the old CRTs.  When I am playing a game I usually don't sit around judging color depth, I am just playing the game.  The only thing that truely matters for gaming and LCDs is refresh rate.  I haven't seen a ghosting problem with LCDs in a long time.

Plasmas are the closest to CRT I've seen, but it seems no one makes them smaller than 42".

rhm said:

turrican said:

*snip*

Don't waste your time - Androidi are like those people who continue to insist that gramophone records are better than CDs even though they don't even listen to them themselves because actually, as soon as you play it, it's damaged a little bit and it's impossible to keep dust and dirt off something that holds an electrostatic charge so perfectly.

 

I was amused however by the argument that LCDs are inferior because his eyes dry out when using them. You might want to try blinking occasionally! I find this too sometimes, but because I'm not a nutjob, I realise that I blink less because I'm able to stare at the LCD for longer and the reason for that is because it is flicker-free and razor sharp.

There are laser turntables where nothing physical touches the vinyl album, but I have no idea how they sound in comparison. The whole CRT vs. LCD and vinyl vs. CD arguments often leave me wondering whether I'm blind and deaf. I just don't get the "but the colors are so much richer, the sound so much fuller, yadda yadda yadda ...." arguments. Yes, LCDs can look washed out when viewed at an angle, but (I don't know about the rest of you) I don't keep my monitor on the floor near my left foot. It's right in front of my face, and looks just fine. Honestly, I think some (not all) of this is simply some form of nerd retro-elitism. Or I'm just blind and deaf.

mstefan said:

rhm said:

*snip*

There are laser turntables where nothing physical touches the vinyl album, but I have no idea how they sound in comparison. The whole CRT vs. LCD and vinyl vs. CD arguments often leave me wondering whether I'm blind and deaf. I just don't get the "but the colors are so much richer, the sound so much fuller, yadda yadda yadda ...." arguments. Yes, LCDs can look washed out when viewed at an angle, but (I don't know about the rest of you) I don't keep my monitor on the floor near my left foot. It's right in front of my face, and looks just fine. Honestly, I think some (not all) of this is simply some form of nerd retro-elitism. Or I'm just blind and deaf.

 

It took me four months to realise that my PC speakers had switched to mono, so telling the difference between CD and Vinyl or between LCD and CRT (or cheap wine vs expensive wine) is not something that I really care about.

Ignorance can be bliss.

Herbie

Dr Herbie said:

mstefan said:

*snip*

It took me four months to realise that my PC speakers had switched to mono, so telling the difference between CD and Vinyl or between LCD and CRT (or cheap wine vs expensive wine) is not something that I really care about.

 

Ignorance can be bliss.

 

Herbie

 

Ah, that reminds me, several years ago after I bought a particular DVD of an anime I really loved (Read or Die), I discovered that not only was it missing the 5.1 track, the channels were reversed on the regular stereo track. I managed to notice this in about five seconds because I have the soundtrack on CD so I could hear the music was wrong.

When I told Dybex (the publisher of the DVD, and the only major publisher of anime in the Netherlands). They told me it wasn't an issue because it wasn't noticeable. There's a self-disproving argument for you, because obviously, I had noticed it.

The problems with this DVD (besides the audio, it also had fuzzy video and very poorly translated subtitles) led me to sell it (to someone who was aware of the issues) and buy the Australian release instead. Their attitude about the problems (refusing to acknowledge them) also led me to decide never to buy another Dybex DVD, and I haven't.

http://displaydaily.com/2009/04/27/nab-2009-the-season-of-their-discontent/

androidi said:

rhm said:

*snip*

Tapes are better. Of course the question is for what. There's plenty of evidence to go around that using tapes as part of an audio production chain to color the sound of a track makes it sound nicer. eg. There's a guy in YouTube who uploads synth demos. I thought his first demo sounded superb and the rest sounded like crap. Well after digging enough it turned out he had ran the first one through analog tape. No wonder. The greatest electronic musician (eg some on Warp records) use it too as part of production process.

 

Tape is better than CD because of coloring? If all you want is coloring, use DSP.

Mar 24, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Sven Groot wrote

...

If they want to change this they'll have to update DirectWrite. It's beyond the scope of IE9.

I couldn't agree more. That's what I expected from MS, but that's not what's happening. I currently sense something wrong with it.